- PTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00043 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–9, 11–19, and 21–24 on all three § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over the specified reference combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Because there are material differences between Ogdon and Carmel, we determine that Ogdon is not substantially the same as Carmel. See Nokia of Am. Corp. v. Soto, IPR2023-00680, Paper 18 at 6 (Vidal Mar. 28, 2024) (“[P]rior art references are not ‘substantially the same’ when there are differences between them that are material to the Office’s prior consideration of the art.” (citing Wolfspeed, Inc. v. Trustees of Purdue University, IPR2022-00761, Paper 13 at 7–8 (Vidal Mar. 30, 2023)). As Patent Owner points out, the Examiner distinguished Carmel during prosecution of the ’138 patent because it did not teach streamlets of the same duration. Prelim. Resp. 40 (citing Ex. 2002, 1329–31). In contrast, Petitioner cites Ogdon in the Petition for teaching, inter alia, segments that have “approximately the same presentation duration.” See, e.g., Pet. 21–22 (quoting Ex. 1004, 2:49–55). Based on the present record, we disagree with Patent Owner that Ogdon fails to disclose what the Office “has already found Carmel lacked,” i.e., “streamlets of the same length. Prelim. Resp. 40. That is, we find that Petitioner applies Ogdon in a manner that is distinguishable from the way Carmel was understood by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’138 patent. Thus, we find that the same or substantially the same art or arguments were not previously presented, so we need not proceed past the first stage of the Advanced Bionics framework with respect to Ogdon. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this time, we determine that no terms of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 14
- BurdenInstitutedInstituted
“the present record, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on its assertion that the limitations of independent claim 1 would have been obvious over Ogdon and Allen.” slip op. at 40
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the ’798 patent is in the field of video streaming over the Internet with adaptive-rate shifting of presentation content based on network conditions. See Ex. 1001, 1:31–34. However, Ogdon similarly discloses switching transmission rate of presentation content that is transmitted over the Internet based on network conditions. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 3:38–41. Further, Ogdon discloses an example where a presentation version may include “real time or animated video.” Id. at 2:61– 66. We find that Ogdon’s disclosure of transmitting real-time video as part of a presentation is the same as video streaming. Thus, we conclude that Ogdon is analogous art to the ’798 patent because it is in the same field of endeavor as the ’798 patent.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,677,798 - PTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00045 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–14, 16–20, 22–28, and 30 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–14, 16–20, 22– 28, and 30 of the ’554 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Our inquiry begins and ends with the first test pertaining to the field of the endeavor. Patent Owner is correct that the ’554 patent is in the field of video streaming over the internet with shifting of streaming content based on network conditions. See Ex. 1001, 1:31–34. Similarly, Ogdon discloses shifting presentation content that is transmitted over the internet based on network conditions. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 1:9–15. The only potential discrepancy appears to be whether Ogdon’s disclosed presentation content can include streaming video. And Ogdon discloses an example where a presentation version may include “real time or animated video.” Id. at 2:61– 66; see also infra § II.D.3.a (discussing Ogdon’s disclosure of video presentations). We find that Ogdon’s disclosure of transmitting real-time video as part of a presentation is the same as video streaming. Thus, we conclude that Ogdon is analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the ’554 patent. slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Based on the present record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Ogdon and Allen to yield this limitation. Ogdon teaches different quality versions of a presentation that may include video (see, e.g., Ex. 1004, 2:8–10, 2:30–66, 13:47–49, 22:44– 47, 24:55), and Allen expressly teaches encoding the same content at bitrates of 56 kbps, 300 kbps, and 600 kbps (see, e.g., Ex. 1005, 12:1–5). Based on these teachings, Petitioner shows sufficiently, on this record, that it would have been obvious to encode streaming video into low, medium, and high quality streams. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–64. We also are sufficiently persuaded on this record that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined Allen with Ogdon to enable streaming video presentations for a variety of different available bandwidths. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 64; Ex. 1004, code (57). In particular, Ogdon’s teaching of retrieving alternatively sized presentations based on transmission data rates supports Petitioner’s proposed combination with Allen’s teaching of encoding video at different bitrates. See Ex. 1004, code (57) (stating that a greater-sized presentation for a “higher transmission rate” has “corresponding enhanced quality of presentation” compared to a reduced-sized version for a “low transmission data rate”), 22:44–47 (stating that “as the expected amount of time for retrieving one or more presentation elements lengthens, . . . better presentation quality presentation elements may be retrieved (e.g., the presentation quality may be enhanced from limited or no animation to full animation)”). And Petitioner establishes sufficiently that an ordinarily skilled artisan reasonably would have expected success in making the combination, particularly given that Ogdon already contemplates alternative presentations for different transmission rates. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62, 64; Ex. 1004, code (57). Patent Owner’s arguments are directed to Ogdon alone and do not account for Petitioner’s proposed modification based on Allen.3 Such arguments do not show nonobviousness where Petitioner’s obviousness ground is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, to the extent Patent Owner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been motivated to modify Ogdon as proposed, it fails to sufficiently explain this contention. For example, we do not read Ogdon to indicate that its presentation versions must be wholly different types of presentation materials, i.e., presentations in different languages or presentations tailored for different audiences. We also do not agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 20–22) that Ogdon fails to teach or suggest video streaming for the same reasons discussed above.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Based on the present record, we find that the secondary considerations findings from the ITC Investigation do not undermine the sufficiency of Petitioner’s obviousness showing at this stage.6 We note that Patent Owner “bears the burden of production with respect to evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness.” ZUP, LLC v. Nash Mfg., Inc., 896 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2018). At this stage, Patent Owner merely references the findings of the ITC rather than adducing evidence of objective indica of nonobviousness in the first instance and attempting to establish a nexus to the invention of the ’554 patent. Further, Petitioner has adduced at least some evidence that the allegedly unique features of the Move Media Player were known in Ogdon, which tends to undermine the ITC’s nexus analysis. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 14:46–49, 22:48–63. We also disagree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 41–42) that Ogdon does not disclose streaming video for the same reasons mentioned above. See supra §§ II.D.1, II.D.3.a. For these reasons, we find that the evidence of secondary considerations in the present record does not undermine Petitioner’s showing for purposes of institution. We also decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based on Petitioner’s alleged failure to address secondary considerations. Patent Owner will have the opportunity at trial to produce evidence related to secondary considerations of nonobviousness. 6 Patent Owner also argues that Dr. Houh’s testimony is unreliable because he failed to consider evidence of secondary considerations from the ITC Investigation. Prelim. Resp. 42–43. We decline to discount Dr. Houh’s testimony on this basis. Regardless of whether Dr. Houh addressed secondary considerations, we find his testimony relevant at this stage to our consideration of (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; and (3) the level of skill in the art. See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18.” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,469,554 - PTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00044 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 3–12, 14–20, 22–25, and 27–29 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“i. Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Petitioner has shown sufficiently at this juncture that the combination of Ogdon and Allen teaches all limitations of claim 1. Petitioner also has put forth a sufficient rationale for combining Allen with Ogdon with a reasonable expectation of success. Based on the present record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of Ogdon and Allen.” slip op. at 31
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“must consider “whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. Although we agree with Petitioner (Pet. 63–64) that Ogdon was not cited during prosecution, we still must consider whether Ogdon is substantially the same as Carmel. We determine that Ogdon is not substantially the same as Carmel because there are differences between them material to the way the Office previously considered the art. See Nokia of Am. Corp. v. Soto, IPR2023-00680, Paper 18 at 6 (Vidal Mar. 28, 2024) (“[P]rior art references are not ‘substantially the same’ when there are differences between them that are material to the Office’s prior consideration of the art.” (citing Wolfspeed, Inc. v. Trustees of Purdue University, IPR2022-00761, Paper 13 at 7–8 (Vidal Mar. 30, 2023)). Both parties agree that the Examiner distinguished Carmel during prosecution because it did not teach streamlets of the same duration. Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1002, 1270–71); Prelim. Resp. 37 (citing Ex. 1002, 1270–73). In contrast, Petitioner cites Ogdon in the Petition for teaching, inter alia, segments that have “approximately the same presentation duration.” See, e.g., Pet. 27 (quoting Ex. 1004, 2:49–55). For the same reasons discussed above (see supra § II.D.3.f), and based on the present record, we disagree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 38) that this disclosure does not teach streamlets of the same length. As such, we find that Petitioner applies Ogdon in a manner that is distinguishable from the way Carmel was understood by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’138 patent. Thus, we find that the same or substantially the same art or arguments were not previously presented, so we need not proceed past the first stage of the Advanced Bionics framework with respect to Ogdon. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Our inquiry begins and ends with the first test pertaining to the field of the endeavor. Patent Owner is correct that the ’138 patent is in the field of video streaming over the internet with shifting of streaming content based on network conditions. See Ex. 1001, 1:31–34. Similarly, Ogdon discloses shifting presentation content that is transmitted over the internet based on network conditions. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 1:9–15. The only potential discrepancy appears to be whether Ogdon’s disclosed presentation content can include streaming video. And Ogdon discloses an example where a presentation version may include “real time or animated video.” Id. at 2:61– 66; see also infra § II.D.3.a (discussing Ogdon’s disclosure of video presentations). We find that Ogdon’s disclosure of transmitting real-time video as part of a presentation is the same as video streaming. Thus, we conclude that Ogdon is analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the ’138 patent. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that Ogdon qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Ogdon’s issue date of December 12, 2000, is more than one year before the earliest effective filing date of the challenged claims, which is April 30, 2004. Ex. 1001, code (60); Ex. 1004, code (45). slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Ogdon and Allen to yield this limitation. Ogdon teaches different quality versions of a presentation that may include video (see, e.g., Ex. 1004, 2:8–10, 2:30–66, 13:47–49, 22:44– 47, 24:55), and Allen expressly teaches encoding the same content at bitrates of 56 kbps, 300 kbps, and 600 kbps (see, e.g., Ex. 1005, 12:1–5). Based on these teachings, Petitioner shows sufficiently, on this record, that it would have been obvious to encode streaming video into low, medium, and high quality streams. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–67. We also are sufficiently persuaded on this record that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined Allen with Ogdon to enable streaming video presentations for a variety of different available bandwidths. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 67; Ex. 1004, code (57). In particular, Ogdon’s teaching of retrieving alternatively sized presentations based on transmission data rates supports Petitioner’s proposed combination with Allen’s teaching of encoding video at different bitrates. See Ex. 1004, code (57) (stating that a greater-sized presentation for a “higher transmission rate” has “corresponding enhanced quality of presentation” compared to a reduced-sized version for a “low transmission data rate”), 22:44–47 (stating that “as the expected amount of time for retrieving one or more presentation elements lengthens, . . . better presentation quality presentation elements may be retrieved (e.g., the presentation quality may be enhanced from limited or no animation to full animation)”). And Petitioner establishes sufficiently that an ordinarily skilled artisan reasonably would have expected success in making the combination, particularly given that Ogdon already contemplates alternative presentations for different transmission rates. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65, 67; Ex. 1004, code (57). Patent Owner’s arguments are directed to Ogdon alone and do not account for Petitioner’s proposed modification based on Allen.3 Such arguments do not show nonobviousness where Petitioner’s obviousness ground is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, to the extent Patent Owner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been motivated to modify Ogdon as proposed, it fails to sufficiently explain this contention. For example, we do not read Ogdon to indicate that its presentation versions must be wholly different types of presentation materials, i.e., presentations in different languages or presentations tailored for different audiences. We also do not agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 22–25) that Ogdon fails to teach or suggest video streaming for the same reasons discussed above. See supra §§ II.D.1, II.D.3.a. Thus, based on the present record, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding this limitation are unavailing.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,470,138 - Infineon Technologies AG v. Amatech Group LimitedRehearing grantedPTAB · Apr 3, 2024 · IPR2022-00951 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Rehearing
On rehearing, the Board held claim 3 unpatentable as obvious over Eray-WO799, revising the final written decision’s outcome for that claim.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“unrebutted expert testimony corroborated by two prior art patents describing RFID smart cards” and that this evidence “demonstrated that a conventional and obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799’s smart card was by forming a card antenna on a card body before adding the chip.” Req. Reh’g 2 (citing Pet. 39–40; Paper 20 (“Reply”) at 31). Thus, Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an obvious and conventional way of manufacturing the card body of Eray- WO799 would have had unconnected ends as required by our construction. Id. Paragraph 149 of Dr. van der Weide’s declaration states that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that an obvious and conventional way to construct the smart card as shown in Eray-WO799 FIG. 12 would have been to form the turns S1, S2, SC3 and SC4 on or in the card body (e.g., by laying wire) before connecting the wire to (or forming) access terminals and connecting module M.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 149. In support of that because it was “directed to solving problems that occur during the manufacture of cards.” Dec. 42 (citing Ex. 1028, 1:25–2:53). Petitioner points out that “[w]hile Ryu discloses manufacturing techniques, Ryu also describes and claims a ‘communication system’ with a smart card and a reader.” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing Ex. 1028, code (57), claims 1–2). Petitioner is correct in noting that Ryu’s disclosures are not so narrow as we described in the Decision. As to Finn-089, we found that reference unhelpful because it was “directed to a process for the contacting of a wire conductor in the course of manufacture of a transponder unit.” Dec. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1015, 1:15–17). Petitioner asserts that we failed to acknowledge to the fact that Finn-089 was incorporated by reference in the ’240 patent noting that “[p]atents incorporated by reference ‘are effectively part of the host [patents] as if [they] were explicitly contained therein.’” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 757 F.3d 1358, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (alterations in Rehearing Request)). On this record, we agree that we overlooked and misapprehended the import of Ryu and Finn-089 and if those references are given appropriate weight, they lend further credence to Dr. van der Weide’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that an obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799 would have created an intermediate product with requisite free ends. Further, we adopt the full reasoning stated in the Dissent as to the unpatentability of claim 3 (Dec. 53–57). Therefore, we GRANT Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“As stated in our Final Written Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art and found that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and 1–2 years of experience researching and developing antennas used in RFID applications.” Dec. 6–7 (citing Pet. 8; PO Resp. 18). Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Daniel van der Weide, supported Petitioner’s definition, which was adopted for this proceeding. Ex. 1003 ¶ 25. Dr. van der Weide defined himself as “a person of more than ordinary skill in the art during the relevant timeframe” because “[b]y 2010, [he] held a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, and [he] had at least” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“unrebutted expert testimony corroborated by two prior art patents describing RFID smart cards” and that this evidence “demonstrated that a conventional and obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799’s smart card was by forming a card antenna on a card body before adding the chip.” Req. Reh’g 2 (citing Pet. 39–40; Paper 20 (“Reply”) at 31). Thus, Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an obvious and conventional way of manufacturing the card body of Eray- WO799 would have had unconnected ends as required by our construction. Id. Paragraph 149 of Dr. van der Weide’s declaration states that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that an obvious and conventional way to construct the smart card as shown in Eray-WO799 FIG. 12 would have been to form the turns S1, S2, SC3 and SC4 on or in the card body (e.g., by laying wire) before connecting the wire to (or forming) access terminals and connecting module M.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 149. In support of that because it was “directed to solving problems that occur during the manufacture of cards.” Dec. 42 (citing Ex. 1028, 1:25–2:53). Petitioner points out that “[w]hile Ryu discloses manufacturing techniques, Ryu also describes and claims a ‘communication system’ with a smart card and a reader.” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing Ex. 1028, code (57), claims 1–2). Petitioner is correct in noting that Ryu’s disclosures are not so narrow as we described in the Decision. As to Finn-089, we found that reference unhelpful because it was “directed to a process for the contacting of a wire conductor in the course of manufacture of a transponder unit.” Dec. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1015, 1:15–17). Petitioner asserts that we failed to acknowledge to the fact that Finn-089 was incorporated by reference in the ’240 patent noting that “[p]atents incorporated by reference ‘are effectively part of the host [patents] as if [they] were explicitly contained therein.’” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 757 F.3d 1358, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (alterations in Rehearing Request)). On this record, we agree that we overlooked and misapprehended the import of Ryu and Finn-089 and if those references are given appropriate weight, they lend further credence to Dr. van der Weide’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that an obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799 would have created an intermediate product with requisite free ends. Further, we adopt the full reasoning stated in the Dissent as to the unpatentability of claim 3 (Dec. 53–57). Therefore, we GRANT Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,165,240 - PTAB · Mar 28, 2024 · IPR2024-00194 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 3–6 and 10 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 3 and 10 are obvious over Setton and Baker.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“We determine that this factor weighs against discretionary denial. Some work has been completed, but the Texas litigation is in its early stages. Although infringement and invalidity contentions have been served (Ex. 1022, 5; Ex. 2002, 5), the majority of the work still remains to be completed, including the Markman briefing and order, fact discovery, and expert discovery (Ex. 2002, 3–5; accord Ex. 1022, 3).” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Conclusion For the reasons provided above, Petitioner has sufficiently shown (for purposes of institution) that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Setton and Baker as proposed, and that the combination teaches, suggests, or renders obvious each limitation of independent claim 3. We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments, but they are unavailing at this stage and on this record. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in establishing that the subject matter of claim 3 would have been obvious over Setton and Baker.” slip op. at 34
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’099 patent and the asserted prior art. This definition is also supported by the testimony of Dr. Reddy. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 19. In addition, Patent Owner appears to agree with Petitioner regarding the educational background and number of years of work experience. Compare Prelim. Resp. 32, with Pet. 9. At this stage, given the disclosure of the ’099 patent, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s contention that the ordinary artisan would have had experience with “data networks and video streaming systems” generally, rather than “video teleconferencing systems” specifically. However, the analysis in this Decision would not have changed if we had instead adopted Patent Owner’s proposal.10” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“At this stage, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s understanding of the claim’s plain language. Elements 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 require that the “plurality of endpoints” be “configured such that a film strip with frames containing reduced-size video feeds from the conference participants is displayed at the mesh endpoints.” This language does not require that each of the endpoints supply a video feed; rather, it requires that the conference participants supply the video feeds. Also, the claim does not appear to include language that requires any of “the conference participants” to be associated with the non-mesh connected endpoint. Patent Owner assumes that “the conference participants” are the individuals participating from any and every endpoint (see Prelim. Resp. 37), but it fails to sufficiently support this understanding. According to Patent Owner, the claim’s later reference to “‘the mesh-connected conference participants’ . . . show[s] that the scope of ‘the conference participants’ is broader than just ‘mesh-connected endpoints.’” Prelim. Resp. 37; see Ex. 1001, 18:36. We disagree. Even if that claim language demonstrates that some “conference participants” are associated with mesh- connected endpoints, it does not show that the set of “conference participants” is necessarily broader. In fact, the claim language cuts the other way—the claim refers to “the mesh-connected conference participants,” indicating that this term derives antecedent basis from (and is the same as) the “conference participants” referenced earlier in the claim. Moreover, the claim later refers to “a user located at the non-mesh connected endpoint” (Ex. 1001, 18:42–43), which further indicates that the “conference participants” need not include a person associated with the non-mesh connected endpoint. Although Patent Owner points to two passages from the Specification to support its position (see Ex. 1001, 5:13–17, 17:47–49), neither suggests a particular meaning for this claim phrase. One passage describes a particular embodiment in which conference participants receive video streams “from all other endpoints” (id. at 5:13–17),11 and the other simply states that the described system allows a non-mesh endpoint to participate “in much the same way” as mesh-connected endpoints (id. at 17:47–49). In addition, we have assigned little weight to Dr. Sharony’s testimony regarding the meaning of this phrase (see Ex. 2001 ¶ 94) because he reiterates Patent Owner’s legal arguments without either providing technical background or addressing the meaning of terms to an ordinarily skilled artisan. See Philips, 415 F.3d at 1318.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,204,099 - Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 21, 2024 · IPR2020-00511 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board held claims 1–3, 5, 6, 10–12, 14, and 15 unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of Chen and Grab-333 with Candelore or Kocher.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“I. INTRODUCTION This case is on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to address the patentability of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 10–12, 14, and 15 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,184,920 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’920 patent). Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, No. 2022-1043, 2023 WL 3115576 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 27, 2023) (nonprecedential). For the reasons discussed herein, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Challenged Claims are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978)). As neither party challenges our preliminary finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, we see no reason to disturb that finding. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in video encryption and cryptography or . . . a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in video encryption and cryptography.” See Inst. Dec. 9–10 (finding the same).” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In the Response, Patent Owner does not propose a construction for any claim term or contest our preliminary findings regarding limitations 1[a] and 1[b]. See generally PO Resp. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm our preliminary determinations regarding the meaning of the recited “user encryption key” and “content encryption key.” [Inst.] Dec. 12– 15. Additionally, we need not construe other claim terms to resolve the present controversy before us.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“obviousness] involves the weighing of the fact findings to conclude whether the claimed combination would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan.” Arctic Cat, 876 F.3d at 1361. On balance, considering the complete record before us, Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14, and 15 of the ’920 patent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 103
Patent outcomesUS 9,184,920 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,184,920 - Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Mar 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01363 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, and 10–13 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim, including obviousness over Holmberg and Battey.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one of the Challenged Claims of the ’483 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all the Challenged Claims of the ’483 patent on all the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends claim 1 should be construed to require that “the drop cable retain its external jacket as it is routed internally.” Pet. 10. Petitioner contends this construction differs from Patent Owner’s apparent construction in the district court, “which allows the external jacket to be removed as the drop cable enters the DIB and the fibers routed inside the box without the external jacket.” Id. at 10–11. Patent Owner contends Petitioner’s narrower construction requiring the “drop cable” retain its external jacket is incorrect, but contends “the Board need not resolve this claim construction dispute to deny institution because Petitioner’s proposed Grounds 1–5 are all insufficient under” either party’s construction. Prelim. Resp. 9. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). We address below, however, whether the recited cable types themselves constitute claim limitations.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“slack fiber. Prelim. Resp. 33–37. These arguments are not persuasive. First, Petitioner does not propose a bodily incorporation of Battey’s shelf into the device of Holmberg. Rather, Petitioner’s proposed combination retains splice tray 230 of Holmberg and relies on Battey for its disclosure of using a hinge connection for the splice tray. Pet. 40 (asserting that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have found it obvious to modify Holmberg pursuant to Battey, resulting in splice tray 230 moveable relative to main body 216”), 43 (“Such a modification would have been a simple substitution of a hinged connection instead of a fastener.”). Second, although Battey utilizes a fixedly mounted slack basket to store excess cable, we are directed to no disclosure or teaching in Battey that teaches away from using other means of storing slack fiber.” slip op. at 23
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“For the reasons set forth below, we determine that part two of the Advanced Bionics framework has not been satisfied. Thus, we need not address whether part one of the framework is satisfied in view of the alleged cumulative nature of Laporte and Battey.” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,008,483 - PTAB · Feb 26, 2024 · IPR2023-01275 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 8 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Clark and Manner.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). See 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s argument that Industrial Design does not have a set definition is supported by Dr. Ben-Tzvi’s testimony. Nonetheless, we give little weight to his testimony on this point because he does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Ex. 2001 ¶ 22. Based on the present record, we do not exclude Industrial Design from the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, although the parties are free to address this issue further during trial. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s level of skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’650 patent and the prior art. Our Decision would be not be affected if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“C. Mr. Kemnitzer’s Testimony Patent Owner contends that we should give little to no weight to Mr. Kemnitzer’s testimony because his “education and experience is in industrial design, rather than mechanical engineering.” Prelim. Resp. 57 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4–6). According to Patent Owner, “[s]uch qualifications are directed more toward aesthetics than hard science,” while “[m]echanical engineering concerns are at the core of certain deficiencies in Mr. Kemnitzer’s analysis.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 58). Regardless of the precise contours of industrial design, Mr. Kemnitzer testifies that he has “substantial direct experience in designing products that utilize the manufacturing processes, components, and materials of the designs at issue in this matter” and “in designing fully adjustable products for the commercial furniture, computer, and healthcare industries.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 5. Thus, on the present record at this stage of the proceeding, we decline to minimize the weight given to his testimony for this reason. The parties, however, are free to address this issue further during trial.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner contends that “the ’650 patent is obvious under any reasonable construction of the claims.” Pet. 9. Petitioner points out that it contends in district court that the term “an actuator for controlling the driver” is indefinite for invoking means-plus-function claiming without providing corresponding structure. Id. (citing Ex. 1023, 36–40; Ex. 1024, 28–32). Petitioner, however, adopts Patent Owner’s construction of this term for the purposes of this proceeding—“a mechanism to activate or control equipment, e.g., by use of pneumatic, hydraulic, or electronic signals.” Id. at 10 (quoting Ex. 1012, 3–4). Petitioner also points out that in the district court, the parties’ proposed constructions of “work surface” also differ. Id. Specifically, Petitioner advocates that the term should be construed as “a curved surface at the top of a cart large enough to dispense medication or hold work papers,” while Petitioner characterizes Patent Owner’s position as advocating “for a broader ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ construction. Id. (citing Ex. 1012, 8–9). Petitioner, however, states that it “includes alternate grounds using Gillis to demonstrate how the claims are invalid under either Petitioner or Patent Owner’s construction.” Id. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner fails to expressly adopt or set forth any claim definitions aside from the term “work surface.” Prelim. Resp. 17. Patent Owner, however, contends that the claimed invention is valid under any reasonable construction. Id. Patent Owner also contends that the term “compartment” should be construed as “an enclosed space for containing an item” and that the construction of “work surface” is not dispositive here. Id. at 18–20. We agree with Patent Owner that it is not necessary to construe “work surface” at this stage of the proceeding because the construction of the term does not resolve the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,215,650 - PTAB · Feb 26, 2024 · IPR2023-01274 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 3 and 4 on all grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 3 and 4 would be unpatentable as obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). See 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, Preliminary Reply, Preliminary Sur-reply as well as all supporting evidence, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing at least one claim of the ’668 patent is unpatentable. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’668 patent on all grounds stated in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42 (“When instituting . . . review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”); PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1359–60 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the relevant statutory provisions, in light of SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s argument that Industrial Design does not have a set definition is supported by Dr. Ben-Tzvi’s testimony. Ex. 2001 ¶ 22. Nonetheless, we give little weight to his testimony on this point because it 9 Patent Owner is reminded that arguments may not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Based on the present record, we do not exclude Industrial Design from the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, although the parties are free to address this issue further during trial. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s level of skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’668 patent and the prior art. Our Decision would not be affected if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Regardless of the precise contours of industrial design, Mr. Kemnitzer testifies that he has “substantial direct experience in designing products that utilize the manufacturing processes, components, and materials of the designs at issue in this matter” and “in designing fully adjustable products for the commercial furniture, computer, and healthcare industries.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 5. Thus, on the present record and at this stage of the proceeding, we decline to minimize the weight given to his testimony for this reason. The parties, however, are free to address this issue further during trial.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that it is not necessary to construe “work surface” expressly at this stage of the proceeding because the construction of the term does not resolve the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,594,668 - Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2020-00558 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Remand
The majority determined claims 1–24 were not shown unpatentable over Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst; the dissent would have found them obvious.
RulingsRemand decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We determine Patent Owner’s reading of the claim limitation is the better one. The limitation begins with the verb “locating,” and it therefore makes sense that the clause would recite what is located (i.e., encryption information) and where it is located (i.e., within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video). In other words, it is reasonable that the second and third clauses of the limitation both modify the first clause (for example, as could perhaps be expressed through the use of commas as “locating encryption information, that identifies encrypted portions of frames of video, within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video”).10 On the other hand, Petitioner’s reading of the limitation, 10 In general, we recognize that the use of commas to set off phrases in claim drafting is not consistent. We included commas above to illustrate Patent Owner’s understanding of the claim limitation. allowing only the second clause to modify the first, while not unreasonable, makes less sense. That is, the encrypted information identifies the encrypted portions of frames, which in turn are within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video. Reading the claim in its entirety, the encrypted portions of frames would be understood to be located within the requested portions of the stream; it does not seem necessary for the claim to expressly recite that aspect. For example, the very next limitation— limitation [m] of claim 1—refers to “each encrypted portion of the frames of video” but does not expressly recite “within the requested portions of the selected stream.” Ex. 1001, 27:58–60. Thus, when limitation [l] recites “within the requested portions of the selected stream,” it seems more likely that the clause refers to where that encrypted information is located rather than simply to indicate the obvious location of the encrypted portion of the frames of video. We therefore view Patent Owner’s reading of the claim language as the better one.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundMixed
“I am persuaded that the Petition demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a motivation to combine Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst, as asserted by Petitioner. As the Federal Circuit found, the Petition pointed to and relied upon the portions in Chen describing pre-Chen art, without scalability or FEC features that were part of what Chen describes as aspects of its own inventive system. Netflix, slip op. at 9–10 (citing Pet. 17– 19, 69–70). I agree with Petitioner that “Chen-924 teaches several embodiments that adaptively stream alternative representations of a video using partially encrypted container files.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1010, 14:41– 15:60). I determine that Chen-924 provides support for the rationale provided in the Petition, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chen and Lindahl in view of the disclosure of Chen-924. As discussed above, the Petition does not rely solely on privacy concerns and improvements to efficiency as its motivation to combine the references. See Pet. 18–19 (specifying piracy concerns, improvements to the efficiency of adaptive streaming, optimization of the balance between bitrate and bandwidth, and improvements to the end-user experience with fast startup and seek). With respect to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have” slip op. at 52
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner
“I agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s Remand Brief, specifically pages 1–7, attempt to address aspects of claim 1 for the first time on remand. I also agree that Patent Owner’s arguments attempt to recharacterize limitations [j] and [k] to raise issues that Patent Owner did not raise previously, in contravention of our Order that issues raised needed support from “where those issues were raised in previous briefings by the parties.” Paper 56, 2. I have addressed whether scalability and FEC are integral to how Chen operates above, as well as whether the Petition relies on those aspects, supra. The questions about how Chen operates and what portions of Chen are asserted in the ground of unpatentability were previously raised, but now are being considered or reconsidered, based on the Federal Circuit’s decision. In Patent Owner’s Remand Brief, pages 1–7, the citations to argument previously raised do not support the arguments now presented by Patent Owner on remand. As such, I determine Patent Owner’s new arguments fall outside the scope of remand, and I dismiss these arguments seeking to distinguish limitations [j] and [k] from the cited prior art combination.24” slip op. at 62
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMixed
“7 Patent Owner’s Brief on Remand recognizes that there are two arguments Patent Owner raised in its Patent Owner Response that were not addressed in the Final Written Decision. See PO Remand Br. 1 (citing PO Resp. 24–37 (the construction of “locating encrypted information . . . within requested portions”), 38–58 (referring to Patent Owner’s “common keys” argument)). 8 The Final Decision also addressed Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 42). See Final Dec. 28–37 (granting-in-part, denying-in-part, and dismissing-in-part Petitioner’s Motion). Our determinations on that Motion were part of Petitioner’s appeal to the Federal Circuit. See Paper 52. Because the Federal Circuit did not address this aspect of the Final Written Decision and the Federal Circuit’s decision does not impact our previous rulings on the Motion, we maintain those rulings here. Additionally, on remand, Petitioner requested authorization to file a motion for sanctions, which we held in abeyance until the parties’ briefing on remand was complete. See Ex. 3003, 1. Petitioner requests sanctions because of the impropriety of Patent Owner’s remand brief, including new claim construction arguments for limitations [1j] and [1k], and prejudice to Petitioner. Id. at 3, 5. Although we reserved further consideration of Petitioner’s request, we expanded both the time and pages allowed for Petitioner’s responsive brief, and also allowed Petitioner to address any related issues in its responsive brief. Id. at 1. Having considered the parties’ briefing on remand, and given that we do not reach the claim construction arguments that Petitioner objected to in its request for authorization to file a motion for sanctions, we deny Petitioner’s request.” slip op. at 5
Patent outcomesUS 10,225,588 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,225,588
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.